How prevalent is libertarianism among skeptics?

[geni]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

As others have alluded to upthread, the odd thing about online libertarianism is the way it seems to be dominated by the extreme wing. The "abolish all government" types are very vocal and persistent, and seem to drown out what I think of as the "moderate libertarian" types who may want to end the drug war and certain social programs but not privatize the court system, etc.

1)Koch brothers and co. "types who may want to end the drug war" lack a low tax agender and those who want to cut certain social programs are already catered for by the republican party.

2)Because "types who may want to end the drug war" at this point includes a very large percentage of the pre myspace internet popultion. Thus another round of otherwise extremely strait laced people trying to pretend they are still something of a rebel by suggesting we should legalise cannabis will get rather boring.

3)It's very hard from the libertarian POV to defend any given goverment service which makes stopping short of anarcho-capitalism tricky.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

I haven't seen any definition of 'libertarian' I could throw myself behind. (I am not a US resident.) There are aspects of 'libertarianism' that intrigue me, and if asked to define my political beliefs, I usually say 'libertarian' but with 'a small 'l''.

Non-loopy libertarian?

From comments you made in the past I am surprised by this, I had gotten the impression of you as "I got mine, so screw the social safety net" type of libertarian.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

As others have alluded to upthread, the odd thing about online libertarianism is the way it seems to be dominated by the extreme wing. The "abolish all government" types are very vocal and persistent, and seem to drown out what I think of as the "moderate libertarian" types who may want to end the drug war and certain social programs but not privatize the court system, etc.

So the moderates who believe the ideal government was around 1850.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Darat

I think the problem with the identification with "liberal" is how the word has been denigrated, mauled and fed through the shredder in the USA! In the rest of the world it doesn't mean "pinko-commie-facist-child-murderer"

Does it mean something different than the Libertarian Party Platform I cited earlier?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

As others have alluded to upthread, the odd thing about online libertarianism is the way it seems to be dominated by the extreme wing. The "abolish all government" types are very vocal and persistent, and seem to drown out what I think of as the "moderate libertarian" types who may want to end the drug war and certain social programs but not privatize the court system, etc.

I'm curious about why that should be the case. I think perhaps it's that libertarians have a tendency to want to build a political philosophy from universal ironclad principles, whether Ayn Rand's or somebody else's, and so it pushes them into reasoning like "all taxation is theft, theft is wrong, government requires taxation, therefore government is wrong." Whereas people who identify themselves more on the traditional left-right spectrum seem more accepting of the notion of grey areas and balancing the benefits of government with the costs. But then I suppose that just invites the question of why libertarians have that fondness for universal ironclad principles.

So how would you distinguish the Libertarian who recognizes there is a role for some publicly funded investment/services from the Progressive liberal who thinks a balance between public and private investment/services is the best option?

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So how would you distinguish the Libertarian who recognizes there is a role for some publicly funded investment/services from the Progressive liberal who thinks a balance between public and private investment/services is the best option?

I'm not sure that I would or could, at least not in a bright-line way. No more than I could tell you definitively where the dividing line is between "progressive liberals" and "centrists." I would say that as a general matter, the libertarian is likely to think that the proper role for publicly funded services is less than the progressive, but I don't have a clear test for you.

[Antiquehunter]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

From comments you made in the past I am surprised by this, I had gotten the impression of you as "I got mine, so screw the social safety net" type of libertarian.

Thats a bit harsh, I would say...

Certainly I have elected to vote with my feet, I won't deny that. And I'm definitely not a huge fan of the 'social safety net' as it exists in Canada. I don't know enough about the US system to comment intelligently.

[ServiceSoon]

I read the article. I'd classify myself as an outsider looking in. I don't attend TAM, listen to the podcast, etc. I have no vested interest per se in the "movement." I just like to discuss and stay informed on various topics and receive input from as many people as possible from all walks of life. It appears this author wants skepticism to focus on two goals. The first is to promote science. The the second is to protect consumers.

Apparently he doesn't believe that enough attention is payed to science in public education. Let's at least agree to one thing, science doesn't and never will solve all the problems we face. Remember the discussion on cargo cult? I find it best to balance life. My best guess is that the author wants to promote science to educate the masses. Does he really get that upset when people believe in ghost or astrology? Ok, yes he does. Come on, a little Santa Clause here and Easter bunny there never hurt anybody, does it? Well, if he wants to dedicate his life, and apparently yours too to this cause I wish you'll the best of luck. IDK. Does he think the world will become a better place if people didn't hold these "false" beliefs?

Regarding the second suggested goal. I can stand behind that, but isn't it the responsibility of the government and more importantly the individual to protect themselves from fraud in commerce? AFAIK there are various private, state and federal agencies responsible for just this. The CPSC, FTC, BBB, consumer reports, etc.

Originally Posted by Daniel Loxto

When do you give up on a given paranormal notion?

I say never. This doesn't mean that you review it every week, but you have to give it an honest look every now and then. Personally I think the attitude of skeptics in discussions should be more humble than it currently is.

I agree with the author whole-heartily on one point, though I noticed the obvious stabs he takes at the beliefs contrary to his own. I don't believe that it's a good idea to tie skepticism to a belief in God or lack there of. Nor do I think it's a good idea to tie any particular political belief system to skepticism.

Personally I have great compassion for the idea of Libertarianism. I also understand, and Darat said it best so I'll let her do so again

Originally Posted by Darat

I don't think it's as much a double standard as simply a belief about how the world should operate in a particular way. And to me when those beliefs are used as part of an ideology the ideology fails to model the real world since the real world is not simple (all ideologies suffer from this flaw).

At the end of the day I don't classify myself as any one political position and I personally think that's the best way to be. I'd like to consider myself a pragmatist, but that's more difficult to do than say. As far as God...perhaps another day.

[corbin]

Seems everybody is confusing libertarianism (very limited government restricted to national defense, police/courts, standards, and a few other things) with anarchism (no government for police or defense - such matters will be accounted for by the market).

Sure they are close to each other on the sliding scale of liberty, but, IMO, anarchism isn't an extreme form of libertarianism.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by corbin

Seems everybody is confusing libertarianism (very limited government restricted to national defense, police/courts, standards, and a few other things) with anarchism (no government for police or defense - such matters will be accounted for by the market).

Sure they are close to each other on the sliding scale of liberty, but, IMO, anarchism isn't an extreme form of libertarianism.

Kind of like a lot of people try to conflate progressive liberals with communists and socialists.

I don't see Libertarian as anarchists but I can empathize with your post. The Libertarians seem to be more about all free market and no public funding of anything except the military. And rather than no regulations they seem to think any regulation that benefits the whole rather than simply keeping the market honest is bad.

Do I have that right?

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

As others have alluded to upthread, the odd thing about online libertarianism is the way it seems to be dominated by the extreme wing. The "abolish all government" types are very vocal and persistent, and seem to drown out what I think of as the "moderate libertarian" types who may want to end the drug war and certain social programs but not privatize the court system, etc.

I'm curious about why that should be the case. I think perhaps it's that libertarians have a tendency to want to build a political philosophy from universal ironclad principles, whether Ayn Rand's or somebody else's, and so it pushes them into reasoning like "all taxation is theft, theft is wrong, government requires taxation, therefore government is wrong." Whereas people who identify themselves more on the traditional left-right spectrum seem more accepting of the notion of grey areas and balancing the benefits of government with the costs. But then I suppose that just invites the question of why libertarians have that fondness for universal ironclad principles.

I agree with this. If libertarianism wasn't that extreme, it would have an easier time getting a following. Being in favor of capitalism and free trade and legalization of drugs is all good, but abolishing public education and privatize roads are ridiculous propositions. I'd imagine moderate libertarianism being something like The Economist's editorial stance.

A fallacy that many commit (on both left and right) is to think that capitalism is somehow in opposition to a safety net. It is not.

[stevea]

If the question was restated - "how common is libertarian bashing, mischaracterization and strawmanning amongst liberal self-described skeptics" then this thread would be solid evidence.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by stevea

If the question was restated - "how common is libertarian bashing, mischaracterization and strawmanning amongst liberal self-described skeptics" then this thread would be solid evidence.

I don't get this. I've seen many people say that there is too much libertarianism floating around in the skeptical community, and at the same time the libertarians say they're being bashed.

How is it? Maybe Loxton should sort it out, he brought it up.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I don't get this. I've seen many people say that there is too much libertarianism floating around in the skeptical community, and at the same time the libertarians say they're being bashed.

How is it? Maybe Loxton should sort it out, he brought it up.

Of course libertarians say they´re being bashed.

People disagree with them and rip libertarians´ claims to bloody shred ever time they bring them up. In the weird parallel universe with libertarians inhabit and in which their philosophy is self-evidently true, this means everybody hates them for being right.

[TubbaBlubba]

My main problem with libertarians is that they don't seem to have any useful ideas. I may disagree with fiscal conservatives on some points, but at least they have well-grounded ideas and something can be learned from the exchange. Same thing with neoclassicals.

With libertarians, it's all just "But the free market takes care of that". I feel that they want to destroy rather than build something.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

My main problem with libertarians is that they don't seem to have any useful ideas. I may disagree with fiscal conservatives on some points, but at least they have well-grounded ideas and something can be learned from the exchange. Same thing with neoclassicals.

With libertarians, it's all just "But the free market takes care of that". I feel that they want to destroy rather than build something.

It seems your main beef with libertarians are that they are not very pragmatic, is that right?

In the Swedish political blogosphere, the libertarian blogs are by far the best, but libertarianism as a vision for society is not realistic. Privatize roads and abolish public education, wtf? Open borders is a nice ideal that one day can hopefully be achieved, but is at this point completely unrealistic.

Btw, I'm probably what you would call a "fiscal conservative" (though I strongly reject the label "conservative"), at least by Swedish standards (certainly not by American standards).

[TubbaBlubba]

Yes, I'm strongly pragmatical when it comes to politics and economics. I actually know some libertarians who when cornered admit that their society wouldn't be very fun to live in (unless you were one of the elite, which I presume they all imagine themselves to be), yet that it's the right thing because of some apparently metaphysical concept of justice.

I find it seriously difficult to care much about Swedish economic policies these days. Regardless of party, they usually do the same thing one or another way, with different labels applied to their actions, and in the end most of the parties seem reasonably competent. Social policies is a somewhat different beef, though, but even there I simply don't find the interest to engage myself in it enough to have a strong opinion. Generally I'd say I'm a bit left of the Social Democrat, possibly a bit right of their left wing in certain economic issues. Basically I favour a free, but regulated markets in the areas where it is practical (which would be most), and a government monopoly in areas where there is adequate reason for such (e.g. Systembolaget, Svenska Spel, etc)

I think the social democratic big business model generally has its advantages, but there are also drawbacks, especially when subsidies are overused.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Yes, I'm strongly pragmatical when it comes to politics and economics. I actually know some libertarians who when cornered admit that their society wouldn't be very fun to live in (unless you were one of the elite, which I presume they all imagine themselves to be)

I don't know if a libertarian society would necessarily be less fun. No forced closing time for clubs, alcohol at Ica and so on. But we can have that without adopting libertarianism.

However, privatized roads would be seriously messy, and abolished public education would be disastrous.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

yet that it's the right thing because of some apparently metaphysical concept of justice.

Yeah, many libertarians believe in some sort of Lockean or Nozickian concept of natural rights, which I regard as a philosophical superstition.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

I find it seriously difficult to care much about Swedish economic policies these days. Regardless of party, they usually do the same thing one or another way, with different labels applied to their actions, and in the end most of the parties seem reasonably competent.

I agree somewhat. This is certainly true for the Soc Dems and the Moderates, but it's not true for all of the smaller parties. But the big two generally agree on all important things, and usually overblow the differences between them.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Basically I favour a free, but regulated markets in the areas where it is practical (which would be most), and a government monopoly in areas where there is adequate reason for such (e.g. Systembolaget, Svenska Spel, etc)

I don't like the monopolies. At all. I want to be able to buy all aclohol at Ica or Willys or whatever.

And our zero tolerance drug policy is a disaster.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

I think the social democratic big business model generally has its advantages, but there are also drawbacks, especially when subsidies are overused.

I think a too close cooperation between big business and the state is a poor idea for an international, globalized economy such as ours.

[Humes fork]

To return to the topic at hand, if libertarianism isn't as prevalent as Loxton says, then which (if any) ideology is?

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

To return to the topic at hand, if libertarianism isn't as prevalent as Loxton says, then which (if any) ideology is?

I´d say that, in general, a disenchantment with all kinds of ideology is most prevalent.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Chaos

I´d say that, in general, a disenchantment with all kinds of ideology is most prevalent.

Of course, and I don't advocate slavish following of any ideology, but rather as (in the words of Shermer) a cognitive shortcut. Of the political opinions most prevalent, what would they be closest to?

[stevea]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I don't get this. I've seen many people say that there is too much libertarianism floating around in the skeptical community, and at the same time the libertarians say they're being bashed.

I think you need to read this thread for statement that amount to character assassination, name calling, claims of mental illness, creating a caricature simplistic idealization - then criticism this strawman, conflating marginal players or groups with the entire train of thought (character assassination by proxy). It's an assault on honest debate.

If I started a discussion of Democratic party thinking with examples of Jefferey Dahmer and Jim Jones, if I made unevidenced claims Harry Reid was a paranoiac or that Chuck Schumer was a Marxist - I would rightly be shouted down for creating a gross distortions; however this parallels arguments against libertarianism on this forum.

Yes there is a lot of bashing and distortion, even on this thread of the libertarianism=anarchy, LibertarianParty is representative of the L.thought, Mr.X is a nutjob, paranoiac, sort. It doesn't further rational debate.

Originally Posted by Humes fork

...
In the Swedish political blogosphere, the libertarian blogs are by far the best, but libertarianism as a vision for society is not realistic. Privatize roads and abolish public education, wtf? Open borders is a nice ideal that one day can hopefully be achieved, but is at this point completely unrealistic.

Hmm - certainly not some perfect libertarian state, but Chile has very successful private roads. Columbia and Brazil outsource a good deal of road maintenance to private sector companies. Yes there are issues and difficulties getting to that point but it's not unrealistic.

I think the main problem is considering Libertarianism is that there is no "pure example" state (and never will be) as reference, but we have no pure democracy either. I think this wrongly leads to the conclusion it is totally impractical. A better approach might to consider the advantages/disavantages of "more libertarian vs less libertarian" states, using valuation like the extent of free markets and the extent of civil liberties, the extent of government intrusion.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by stevea

I think you need to read this thread for statement that amount to character assassination, name calling, claims of mental illness, creating a caricature simplistic idealization - then criticism this strawman, conflating marginal players or groups with the entire train of thought (character assassination by proxy). It's an assault on honest debate.

If I started a discussion of Democratic party thinking with examples of Jefferey Dahmer and Jim Jones, if I made unevidenced claims Harry Reid was a paranoiac or that Chuck Schumer was a Marxist - I would rightly be shouted down for creating a gross distortions; however this parallels arguments against libertarianism on this forum.

Yes there is a lot of bashing and distortion, even on this thread of the libertarianism=anarchy, LibertarianParty is representative of the L.thought, Mr.X is a nutjob, paranoiac, sort. It doesn't further rational debate.

I'm not very familiar with this, so I hope you'll understand if I back out.

Originally Posted by stevea

Hmm - certainly not some perfect libertarian state, but Chile has very successful private roads. Columbia and Brazil outsource a good deal of road maintenance to private sector companies. Yes there are issues and difficulties getting to that point but it's not unrealistic.

Ok, but are privatized roads more practical than the current system? Of course it's possible, but if it wouldn't be an improvement over the current system, I don't see the point.

Also, how are roads funded in these countries? If they are completely private, then wont that necessite that the owners take a toll for usage of that road? In addition, I think roads would be considered a natural monopoly.

Originally Posted by stevea

I think the main problem is considering Libertarianism is that there is no "pure example" state (and never will be) as reference, but we have no pure democracy either. I think this wrongly leads to the conclusion it is totally impractical. A better approach might to consider the advantages/disavantages of "more libertarian vs less libertarian" states, using valuation like the extent of free markets and the extent of civil liberties, the extent of government intrusion.

I absolutely agree. A rational approach in this case would be to discuss how far in the libertarian (or opposite) direction that is beneficient for a society to move, rather than to set up a fixed vision and declare that we should get there. Legalizing drugs and prostitution are all well and good, but I'm not completely hooked on privatizing all national parks and repeal all safety regulations for food and workplaces.

I think that libertarians have useful ideas to bring to the table, but they must be evaluated like all others and not swallowed uncritically.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Of course, and I don't advocate slavish following of any ideology, but rather as (in the words of Shermer) a cognitive shortcut. Of the political opinions most prevalent, what would they be closest to?

Hm, I think you might find a problem there. Sceptics tend to be well acquaintanced with the fact that many things in this world require a lot of gritty, tough work to be done well - science being the most obvious example. In the same way, I think most sceptics will agree that's also how politics work - that there are no simple work-all solutions, not much in the way of shortcuts, but largely and unfortunately trial and error, as we work hard to get better models of society, and try to rid ourselves of the bias that may colour our view of the world. This, of course, flies in the face of ideolouges or people who think the world can be made to work with a reasonably simple construct, whether this be a Marxist state or a deregulated state.

As such I believe we may found ourselves in the uncomfortable chair of having to take things apart on a case-by-case basis, with little in the way of policy panacea. It's unfortunate but happens to be what reality's like.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Of course, and I don't advocate slavish following of any ideology, but rather as (in the words of Shermer) a cognitive shortcut. Of the political opinions most prevalent, what would they be closest to?

That´s a bit like asking which religion atheists are closest to. Just because I was a Christian before I became an atheist, doesn´t mean I believe any more or any less in the god of the Bible than in Zeus and his ilk.

[EGarrett]

In response to the OP, you have to be pretty smart to understand what the libertarians are saying (most replies to libertarian threads miss the mark so drastically that it's almost embarrassing), and you have to be pretty smart to reach the conclusions that skeptics and atheists have made about the world. Libertarians are also exceptionally good at arguing logically for their positions...so if you're someone who follows logical conclusions tightly (and are strong enough mentally to have freed yourself from irrational social programming you received when you were very young), you probably will start to lean towards libertarianism. So those categories (highly intelligent, highly logical, mentally adaptable, skeptic, atheist, libertarian) will tend to be found together. I hesitate to label myself, but the libertarians are so obviously more logically sound about so many things that I find myself arguing on behalf of their philosophy constantly. Almost despite myself.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

From comments you made in the past I am surprised by this, I had gotten the impression of you as "I got mine, so screw the social safety net" type of libertarian.

If this is your view of libertarianism, you haven't paid any attention to it. Please listen to what people are actually trying to tell you, if you want to discuss or understand their viewpoint, and if you don't understand, then ask them and listen to their reply.

I've said before that the reason I ended up without a left-right-democrat-republican party-label was that I actually listened to what the various parties had to say. Not the strawman garbage they make up about each other, but what they said about themselves, in their own words. You should try it.

Oh, and libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are not the same thing.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

In response to the OP, you have to be pretty smart to understand what the libertarians are saying

I have to say that, and the rest of your little spiel, is some insane amount of arrogance.

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Libertarians are also exceptionally good at arguing logically for their positions...so if you're someone who follows logical conclusions tightly.

And I've found that to be remarkably untrue. Libertarians may be capable of using logic but they seem more likely, from my personal experience, to ignore any conclusions that don't mesh with their personal biases. An-Cappers are even worse.

[Minoosh]

Many Libertarians I know are skeptics, until it comes to looking skeptically at the feasibility of Libertarianism.

[Chaos]

They also tend to have ridiculously bloated egos... as seen in this thread and others.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

(most replies to libertarian threads miss the mark so drastically that it's almost embarrassing)

Presumably, this means that they don't give the right responses for you to whip up your canned arguments from the Mises institute.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by elbe

I have to say that, and the rest of your little spiel, is some insane amount of arrogance.

The last time an issue similar to this came up, I conducted an informal poll of a forum of Mensa members, and found that 30% of them identified themselves as atheists. That's twice as high a frequency as in the overall population. I discussed that result in a thread here that's probably pretty easy to search up. I also commented in another thread that I believed extremely-highly-intelligent people tend to have few friends, be highly excitable and have problems with cleaning and personal hygiene. When that became an issue I researched it further and listed dozens of examples combined with studies and articles from various intellectual-societies that said the same thing. Afterward, the person questioning me politely retracted their statement. You can find this by searching up the thread called "Would you want to be a genius if no one knew?"

Now, I'm telling you that I suspect that libertarianism is abnormally high amongst highly intelligent people, as is atheism and skepticism, which is why the OP seems to have found that they occur together frequently. That's my honest best guess, and I don't say things frivolously.

Quote:

And I've found that to be remarkably untrue. Libertarians may be capable of using logic but they seem more likely, from my personal experience, to ignore any conclusions that don't mesh with their personal biases. An-Cappers are even worse.

There's actually not much good data on this topic, because most people's "challenges" to libertarian arguments are completely ignorant of even the most ideas of economics.

Would you say that evolutionary biologists ignore conclusions that don't mesh with their personal biases when 95% of the arguments they end up in are with creationists asking them why there are still monkeys today if man came from monkeys? Of course you wouldn't, because that argument is nonsense.

Likewise, 95% of the arguments against the libertarians are nonsense on that level of silliness. I actually have found a couple of issues with libertarian philosophy on a few key points (especially An-Cap), but it would be almost impossible to discuss those real concerns with the theory without basically blocking or banning a dozen people from the thread. I may have to just do it elsewhere.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Presumably, this means that they don't give the right responses for you to whip up your canned arguments from the Mises institute.

I'm not a libertarian, I'm someone who ends up trying to explain libertarianism to many people because their arguments are so horribly off-base. If it helps you to understand, I'm also not an evolutionary biologist, but if a creationist posted in an evolution thread asking why we don't see apes turning into humans today, I would end up trying to explain to them that they're completely off-base and that's not what evolutionists say is supposed to happen.

Regardless, what you just said is a total logical fallacy. It may be possible that the "Mises institute" actually has good arguments...thus quoting them would not make someone wrong.

[Mister Agenda]

Someday, after explaining that among libertarians, as among liberals and conservatives, there is a lot of diversity of thought, I hope to be asked 'so what's your position on X?' rather than 'so what's the libertarian position on X?' I'd also like to hear fewer questions that aren't along the lines of: 'So you support slavery?', 'So you want seniors to starve in the streets?', or 'So you think big corporations should be able to do anything they want?'

The LP doesn't match my views (to the point I've thought about starting a new party in this day and age when a Facebook page is all you need to get started), I'm more of a 'liberaltarian', but when talking about libertarianism with liberals I rarely get past dealing with the strawmen. At least the conservatives dislike them based on what libertarians actually stand for on the social issues. This isn't the liberals fault though: libertarians have a clear, simple message on the social issues; but we range from minarchists to 'hey, watch the spending!' when it comes to government while letting the economic libertopian theoriticians frame the debate. No wonder liberals expect every libertarian-leaning person to defend an extreme economic view.

Personally, I would probaby be happy if the USA became as libertarian as Canada: more socially liberal and a balanced budget. Unfortunately for Canada, they're in a sweet spot right now that I don't think will last, because it is based on a balance between liberal and conservative parties that will only hold as long as their relative power does.

I think liberals should be very frustrated with the DP because it's like Bush's third term what with stepping up bombing (half-a-dozen countries), renewing the Patriot Act, maintaining Gitmo, and assassinating Bin Laden (because a trial would be too much trouble). I think conservatives should be happy to have a DINO in office, but frustrated that they look like fools because of the conspiracy theories they indulge, and worry that they've managed to move our dialogue so far to the right that Reaginism is now left-of-center.

I don't understand why everyone isn't mad as hell at the people who are supposed to represent them, because they are not acting like our representatives, they act like rulers who have their own agenda and most of the thought directed our way by them is aimed at figuring out how to get us to go along with their wars, something they're very good at.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

In response to the OP, you have to be pretty smart to understand what the libertarians are saying (most replies to libertarian threads miss the mark so drastically that it's almost embarrassing), and you have to be pretty smart to reach the conclusions that skeptics and atheists have made about the world. Libertarians are also exceptionally good at arguing logically for their positions...so if you're someone who follows logical conclusions tightly (and are strong enough mentally to have freed yourself from irrational social programming you received when you were very young), you probably will start to lean towards libertarianism. So those categories (highly intelligent, highly logical, mentally adaptable, skeptic, atheist, libertarian) will tend to be found together. I hesitate to label myself, but the libertarians are so obviously more logically sound about so many things that I find myself arguing on behalf of their philosophy constantly. Almost despite myself.

On the contrary most libertarians seem to reach conclusions smart people disagree with or make points that smart people have already incorporated the valuable bits from and moved on. I suspect you are falling into the age old trap of thinking people disagree because they don’t understand, when in fact they not only understand they understand the problems with the view as well.

What tends to happen is that as people learn more about basic economics is they increasingly swing more towards libertarianism. This holds until they reach post graduate levels where increasing education generally results in a swing in the other direction. This seems largely the result of how economics is taught, you first start by learning the merits of free markets, free trade how and why they work. Once you are grounded in these you can begin to understand when and why they fail and what can be done about it.

US libertarians seem to cap their understand at the first part of that and limit themselves to “free markets are good” and thereafter reject modern economics which is increasingly focused on how to make free markets work most efficiently because they mistakenly take this for “a command economy” and a rejection of free markets when they are nothing of the sort.

[TubbaBlubba]

I see a lot of libertarians dismissing valid rebuttals as "strawmen", myself. It's the easiest way, of course.

[Mister Agenda]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

I see a lot of libertarians dismissing valid rebuttals as "strawmen", myself. It's the easiest way, of course.

Those are actual conversations I've had, the slavery question was a seperate occasion, the 'so you think corporations should be able to do whatever they want' and 'you don't care if old people starve in the street, do you?' were week before last.

Strawmen aren't the only fallacies I run into when discussing libertarianism, of course. Poisoning the well is pretty common, too.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

Those are actual conversations I've had, the slavery question was a seperate occasion, the 'so you think corporations should be able to do whatever they want' and 'you don't care if old people starve in the street, do you?' were week before last.

This more seems like you missing the point then any flaw in their argument. Absent any controls these are legitimate consequences of many libertarian ideas. They point out the extreme because the libertarian they are discussing it with won’t come out and say what controls they support.

Essentially the libertarian agrees the outcome is bad but refuses to commit to what level of control they would accept to keep it from happening. This typically happens when there is already an accepted, working control that the libertarian rejects but rather then propose an alternative control they hand wave away the whole issue.

Instead of saying “I agree that’s a bad outcome” if you are going to reject a control designed to prevent that outcome, you need to propose a control of your own. As I pointed out above, however, most libertarians knowledge tends to fall short and they end up believing it just won’t happen but don’t really have a solid basis for that conclusion.

[Mister Agenda]

I agree it's a bad outcome and don't support ending medicare, for instance. Too many people depend on it. If we significantly cut coporate welfare and military spending, social programs would be more affordable. I would ask that additional spending above what we're doing now be aimed at helping people get into a better situation rather than just be a safety net.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

As such I believe we may found ourselves in the uncomfortable chair of having to take things apart on a case-by-case basis, with little in the way of policy panacea. It's unfortunate but happens to be what reality's like.

I think you misunderstood me, as I agree with that (which I psted in some post slightly before or after yours). What I meant was, taking political ideologies as labels that apply rather than something we ought to conform our views to, where do most skeptics fall?

Originally Posted by EGarrett

In response to the OP, you have to be pretty smart to understand what the libertarians are saying (most replies to libertarian threads miss the mark so drastically that it's almost embarrassing), and you have to be pretty smart to reach the conclusions that skeptics and atheists have made about the world. Libertarians are also exceptionally good at arguing logically for their positions...so if you're someone who follows logical conclusions tightly (and are strong enough mentally to have freed yourself from irrational social programming you received when you were very young), you probably will start to lean towards libertarianism. So those categories (highly intelligent, highly logical, mentally adaptable, skeptic, atheist, libertarian) will tend to be found together. I hesitate to label myself, but the libertarians are so obviously more logically sound about so many things that I find myself arguing on behalf of their philosophy constantly. Almost despite myself.

From what I've heard, most US libertarians are atheists (it's pointless to ask such a question for Swedish libertarians, as almost everyone in all political camps except Christian Democrats are atheists, or at least not particularly religious). However, I'm not sure most of them are skeptics. Global warming denial and belief in natural rights (from which many of their argumentsw stem for) are rather common. In addition, many libertarians favor the Austrian school of economics, which is a fringe school of thought in modern economics.

In what way do you think libertarians are more logical? They may be more freed from social indoctrination, but not every non-libertarian is indoctrinated. I hold several political views that are not held by the majority in Sweden, such as legalization of drugs and prostitution, abolition of the alcohol monopoly, more in favor of Israel than the Palestinians. I'm perfectly comfortable with arguing for these in the right settings. Some of these positions I mentioned are considered so fringe that TubbaBlubba might write me off as a crank right away.

Shermer seems to be of the view that skepticism leads to libertarianism, but I don't actually see him making the case for libertarianism in any of his writings on the matter. If I've missed that, then please show me. I'd be curious.

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Now, I'm telling you that I suspect that libertarianism is abnormally high amongst highly intelligent people, as is atheism and skepticism, which is why the OP seems to have found that they occur together frequently.

Actually, what I did is questioned that they occur together so often, as Loxton said. I found the evidence contradicting it.

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

(to the point I've thought about starting a new party in this day and age when a Facebook page is all you need to get started)

Though the US system is not very friendly to third-parties. I think these libertarians have a better chance of influencing politics.

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

Personally, I would probaby be happy if the USA became as libertarian as Canada: more socially liberal and a balanced budget.

Canada also has UHC as well as (I'd guess) sponsors university education. Two not very libertarian things.

Anyways, since liberals and libertarians mostly agree on personal freedom issues, in what way would a "liberaltarian" differ from a liberal?

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

Strawmen aren't the only fallacies I run into when discussing libertarianism, of course. Poisoning the well is pretty common, too.

I try not to argue in such a way, but instead ask based on facts how this and this would work out - like privatization of roads and public education. The American healthcare system isn't that impressive either.

Nonetheless, many libertarians make their argumements by mere assertion ("Taxation IS theft, government IS evil!"). There are of course more sophisticed arguments, but more often than not they are based on ideas of natural rights, which are woo.

The most persuasive libertarian arguments are those based onm economics - the most respectable famous libertarians in my view are libertarian-leaning economists. But these are very rarely purists, and don't argue based on natural rights, but with more utilitarian arguments.

As I said, in a rational debate on how to organize our societies, I think libertarians have valuable contributions to make.

[Mister Agenda]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

From what I've heard, most US libertarians are atheists (it's pointless to ask such a question for Swedish libertarians, as almost everyone in all political camps except Christian Democrats are atheists, or at least not particularly religious).

It's probably less than half, but it's definitely a higher percentage than in the major parties.

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Shermer seems to be of the view that skepticism leads to libertarianism, but I don't actually see him making the case for libertarianism in any of his writings on the matter. If I've missed that, then please show me. I'd be curious.

I think Shermer is mistaken on this, too. People are libertarian for the same reason they're conservative or liberal: because it matches their values. First 'it sounds right', then reasoning to justify the attraction follows.

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Though the US system is not very friendly to third-parties. I think these libertarians have a better chance of influencing politics.

No doubt, if I could find any 'Freedom Democrats' in my neck of the woods, it would probably be a closer match to where I'm at than the local LP. The only thing that can influence politics though is your power to grant or take away votes, which I don't think they have. OTH, they can't possibly have less power than the LP.

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Canada also has UHC as well as (I'd guess) sponsors university education. Two not very libertarian things.

It's not a deal-breaker for me. More libertarian on average is good enough, it seems silly to get hung up on those two things when overall they are doing better. I'm not looking for libertopia, I just think we have room for improvement on liberty, especially civil liberties, which I think a lot of libertarians neglect in their focus on economic liberty, which often appears to just be a way of saying 'don't tax me!'. Two steps forward on civil liberties and one step backward on economic liberties is a deal I will take. I'm more concerned that fiscal and social policy be responsibly funded than I am about getting some sort of libertopian economic plan in place.

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Anyways, since liberals and libertarians mostly agree on personal freedom issues, in what way would a "liberaltarian" differ from a liberal?

Take the liberal wing of the Democrat Party (anti-war, strong on 1st Amendment, pro-choice, anti-War on Drugs, pro-immigration, anti-corporate welfare) and add support for the other amendments in the Bill of Rights and a committment to fiscal restraint and that population would be pretty much what I'm thinking of when I say 'liberaltarian'. Do you think I would be accurate in calling this the classic liberal position?

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I try not to argue in such a way, but instead ask based on facts how this and this would work out - like privatization of roads and public education. The American healthcare system isn't that impressive either.

I see that, and I appreciate it. I'm a pragmatist, I care about what works, and I think there's more than one way to do things successfully. I think that if someone has an idea to improve the system it should be tried on a small scale, and if successful, it can be tried elsewhere. Roads aren't a priority for me because the system we have is working pretty well. Public schools aren't working well, but I don't think we have to throw out the idea of public education to fix them. I think the American healthcare system is nearly the worst of all possible worlds, except for innovation; although I think a more free market system could be effective, a more socialized system could also be an improvement over what we have. Maybe more socialized with some free market incentives to make it more efficient? At any rate, experiment before implementing.

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Nonetheless, many libertarians make their argumements by mere assertion ("Taxation IS theft, government IS evil!"). There are of course more sophisticed arguments, but more often than not they are based on ideas of natural rights, which are woo.

I couldn't agree with you more. Our wingnuts are many and loud.

Originally Posted by Humes fork

The most persuasive libertarian arguments are those based onm economics - the most respectable famous libertarians in my view are libertarian-leaning economists. But these are very rarely purists, and don't argue based on natural rights, but with more utilitarian arguments.

As I said, in a rational debate on how to organize our societies, I think libertarians have valuable contributions to make.

I agree. Within the LP the biggest divide is between the purist/idealist/theoretical side and the pragmatists. They say we're not true libertarians, we say they'll never accomplish much unless they're willing to compromise. However, there is another divide that has soured me on them: immigration. We used to stand for open immigration, but since 9/11 and picking up a lot of disaffected Republicans, half the LP has turned anti-immigrant. I was hoping the Constitution Party would bleed off our excess right-wingness, but no such luck.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

The last time an issue similar to this came up, I conducted an informal poll of a forum of Mensa members, and found that 30% of them identified themselves as atheists. That's twice as high a frequency as in the overall population. I discussed that result in a thread here that's probably pretty easy to search up. I also commented in another thread that I believed extremely-highly-intelligent people tend to have few friends, be highly excitable and have problems with cleaning and personal hygiene. When that became an issue I researched it further and listed dozens of examples combined with studies and articles from various intellectual-societies that said the same thing. Afterward, the person questioning me politely retracted their statement. You can find this by searching up the thread called "Would you want to be a genius if no one knew?"

Now, I'm telling you that I suspect that libertarianism is abnormally high amongst highly intelligent people, as is atheism and skepticism, which is why the OP seems to have found that they occur together frequently. That's my honest best guess, and I don't say things frivolously.

Atheism does appear to be more common with education, that's true. But libertarianism is hardly equivalent to it, and you do yourself a disservice to compare them. Libertarianism tends to be an intellectual problem that can only, really, ever work under ideal conditions that history heavily suggests won't happen. Atheism is basically just a conclusion reached from a lack of any contra evidence.

For what it's worth, my, rather limited, experience with mensa members has not put the organization in a particularly positive light (I once considered joining). Arrogance is not becoming.

Quote:

There's actually not much good data on this topic, because most people's "challenges" to libertarian arguments are completely ignorant of even the most ideas of economics.

Really? Now, granted, most "libertarian" topics I've seen are really AnCap topics, but it's easier to nail the proponent down on AnCap than on libertarianism. Libs will agree that the government is necessary for certain things, but it's proven rather difficult to find out what they think really is necessary when you get into the real complexities of modern civilization. But, even then, it's all a matter of everyone agreeing that government is necessary but no one agreeing with how much is needed.

I've seen long discussions with libertarians where they don't seem to even understand the tragedy of the commons or other issues that hinder true libertarianism.

Quote:

Would you say that evolutionary biologists ignore conclusions that don't mesh with their personal biases when 95% of the arguments they end up in are with creationists asking them why there are still monkeys today if man came from monkeys? Of course you wouldn't, because that argument is nonsense.

I'm not a big fan of equating economics with hard sciences (though I know some economists will disagree with that).

Quote:

Likewise, 95% of the arguments against the libertarians are nonsense on that level of silliness. I actually have found a couple of issues with libertarian philosophy on a few key points (especially An-Cap), but it would be almost impossible to discuss those real concerns with the theory without basically blocking or banning a dozen people from the thread. I may have to just do it elsewhere.

I can't honestly recall if I've ever heard an argument by a libertarian that wasn't nonsense. They seem to enjoy making unsupported declarations of fact and then declaring conclusions reached by those "facts" to be sound, but ignoring anyone who actually demonstrates those assertions don't hold true. Now I'm not saying libertarians aren't capable of having a rational discussion, but it's certainly a topic that tends to attract very, let's say, passionate people who aren't as knowledgeable as they seem to think they are. When you have libertarians who's basic argument is that everyone who doesn't agree with them is a "statist" and "brainwashed" it's awfully hard to hold a reasonable conversation.

But to each their own. Don't forget the the Dunning–Kruger effect when you start declaring how smart you are. I think most people can agree that there is a lot we don't know, and economics is a pretty complicated beats - what works in small scale doesn't scale well when a world full of externalities become involved - but history has shown that libertarianism has not been as useful as it's proponents would have it be.